Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 347 (PNJ)

Han Parkash v. State Of Haryana

2000-03-27

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment KS. Kumaran, J. 1. Fir No.29 dated 4.5.99 has been registered under Sections 306/34 IPC at Police Station GRP. Sirsa on the statement of Rajinder Singh wherein the following allegations are found: The complainant is owner of shop No.4 in the Grain Market, Sirsa along with Ramesh Kumar (deceased ). Their neighbour Mahesh Kumar son of Chaman Mal was having good relations with them. Pawan Kandoi son of Om Parkash, Pawan son of Mahesh Lal, Han Parkash and Pawan Dalla used to visit their shop along with aforesaid Mahesh, Many years ago, Mahesh alias Chautala, Han Prakash, (Durga Cotton Wala) Pawan Kandoi and Pawan Dalla came to their shop and requested Ramesh to give introduction to the UCO Bank since they wanted to open the account in the said bank. Believing them, Ramesh gave the introduction of Friends Agency Firm. For the last 10-15 days, police are visiting the residence of Ramesh and asking him about the introduction of the person to the Bank, stating that there was evasion of tax. Upon this, Ramesh went to the above said five persons and asked them to produce the person to whom he has given the introduction, so that he may produce him before the police and get rid of the police, But, they did not pay heed. Yesterday also, police came to the residence of Ramesh, and Ramesh was under tension and unhappy. At about 10 p. m. the complainant, Sita Ram Chawala, Ramesh and his wife Biramati were at the residence of Ramesh, and were discussing about this problem. At that time, the above said five persons and two! three others, armed with rifles came to the residence of Ramesh and said that if Ramesh tells the name of that person, then Ramesh, his wife and children will be killed. After this incident, Ramesh was quite upset, and by jumping in front of the train at Railway Station, Sirs a, Ramesh committed suicide. 2. These three petitions arise from the same FIR, and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners have approached this court under Sec.438 Cr. P. C. for bail in anticipation of arrest. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 4. 2. These three petitions arise from the same FIR, and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners have approached this court under Sec.438 Cr. P. C. for bail in anticipation of arrest. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 4. Many years ago, this petitioner and others are alleged to have requested Ramesh (deceased) to introduce one Subhash to UCO Bank for opening an account, and the petitioners and others are stated to have been involved in a tax racket. The police are stated to have visited Ramesh (deceased) for the purpose of securing the said Subhash, whereas the deceased did not even know him. Ramesh allegedly asked the petitioners and others to produce the said Subhash, but the petitioners did not pay heed to him and therefore, Ramesh (deceased) being unable to bear the visit of the police on the one hand, and the refusal of petitioners and others to produce the said Subhash, had allegedly committed suicide. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that these allegations do not constitute an offence under sec. 306 IPC as the petitioners could not be stated to have abetted Ramesh to commit suicide. But the learned counsel for the State and the complainant contend that the police very often visited the deceased and asked him to produce Subhash whom deceased had identified for opening the Bank account, but when the deceased asked the petitioners and others to produce the said person, they not only did not pay heed, but had on 3.5.99 threatened the deceased that if he (deceased) tells the name of that person, then Ramesh (deceased), his wife and children would be killed. According to the learned counsel for the State and the complainant, being unable to bear this, Ramesh (deceased) had committed suicide. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, contend that Ramesh (deceased) had allegedly left a suicide note on 1-5-1999, but had committed suicide on 4.5.99 and in the suicide note allegedly left on 1-5-1999, he had stated that petitioners - Han Prakash, Mahesh Kumar and one Pawan Dalla are responsible for his death since they have opened a bogus firm (Friends Agency), and petitioner- Pawan Kandoi had obtained the identification for opening the bank account in the name of Subhash who is stated to be his partner. The learned counsel for the petitioners also point out that Ramesh (deceased) has, therefore, allegedly disclosed his intention to die, in this letter, but they contend that simply because a bogus firm was allegedly opened, and simply because Ramesh (deceased) was allegedly requested to identify Subhash for opening the bank account, it cannot be stated that the petitioners have abetted Ramesh to commit suicide. But the learned-counsel for the State and the complainant contend that on 3-5-1999, the petitioners had even threatened to kill Ramesh and his family members, if he tells the name of the person. So, even on 1-5-1999, Ramesh (deceased) had allegedly made his intention to commit suicide clear. It is not as the had decided to commit suicide because of the alleged threat by the petitioners and others. 7. The learned counsel for the complainant, of course, contended that Explanation 1 to Sec.107 IPC is applicable to this case inasmuch as the petitioners have concealed the fact that the firm is a bogus firm, and that they are involved in evasion of tax, and therefore, the petitioners should be held to have abetted Ramesh to commit suicide. But the learned counsel for the petitioners contend that Explanation 1 to Sec.107 IPC is not applicable to the facts of the present case at all. They contend that as per the Explanation, if a person, by willful misrepresentation or concealment of material fact, voluntarily gets a thing to be done, or attempts to get a thing done by another person, then the former is guilty of having abetted the doing of that thing. They also contend that in this case, the petitioners did not want Ramesh (deceased) to commit suicide, and therefore, the concealment or misrepresentation cannot lead to conclusion that the petitioners have abetted Ramesh to commit suicide. 8. It may be that, if the allegations of the prosecution are true, then the petitioners and others by their misrepresentation and concealment could be stated to have abetted Ramesh to introduce Subhash to open an account in the bank. If by opening of an account, any offence has been committed, then, the learned counsel for the complainant and the State can contend that by virtue of explanation 1 to Sec.107 IPC, the petitioners and others could be stated to have abetted Ramesh to commit the s8. td offence only. 9. If by opening of an account, any offence has been committed, then, the learned counsel for the complainant and the State can contend that by virtue of explanation 1 to Sec.107 IPC, the petitioners and others could be stated to have abetted Ramesh to commit the s8. td offence only. 9. Therefore, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioners in all these three petitions are entitled to be released on bail in anticipation of arrest. 10. Resultantly these three petitions are allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioners in these three petitions on the allegations found in the FIR mentioned in these petitions the petitioners in these three petitions are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. However, if the association of the petitioners in these three petitions is necessary for the purpose of investigation, the Investigating Officer shall give them notice by giving them sufficient time to joining investigation. On which petitioners in these three petitions shall associate themselves with the investigation. The petitioners in these three petitions shall also abide by the provision of Sec.438 (2) Cr. P. C. Petitions allowed.